On September 21st, 2009 at 4:30pm, the City of Long Beach will hold its City Council Meeting where one of the hot topics will be medical marijuana dispensaries operating within the city. Below is more information regarding the action item (File #: 09-0796). The meeting will be held at 333 W. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach, CA in the Council Chamber.
Three minutes will be given for each member of the public wishing to speak on the issues. This is your opportunity to speak out for something you believe in!
At the very bottom of this article you can see how your Long Beach representatives voted on a substitue motion regarding cannabis dispensaries, collectives and co-ops.
Complete City Council Agenda for September 21, 2009 in PDF format is available HERE
---------------------------------------------
Long Beach City Council Sept. 21 Agenda v1.0
---------------------------------------------
Recommendation to discuss local authority and regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries
File #: 09-0796
Version: 1
Type: Agenda Item
Mover: Rae Gabelich
Seconder: Suja Lowenthal
Result: Pass
Minutes note: Councilmember Reyes Uranga spoke and submitted written comments. Motion: To refer to the Economic Development and Finance Committee for report back to the City Council within 90 days on its deliberations regarding the following considerations related to the licensing of medical marijuana dispensaries and how the City would: [1] Provide a process for the collectives and cooperatives to apply for a business license, to set forth the specific standards and criteria under which such businesses shall be conducted and regulated within the City, and to set forth any regulatory fees pursuant to Title 5; [2] Declare a moratorium on medical marijuana facilities in order to develop a process for business licensing, adopt related zoning ordinances and to provide a time period for the registration of all existing facilities in order to determine the location and number of dispensaries within the City; [3] Develop and recommend the zoning requirements for placement of these facilities: i.e., not allowed near churches or schools, in neighborhoods, etc.; [4] Develop and recommend a standard on the number of dispensaries that would be allowed in the City; and [5] Determine how to amortize the closure of preexisting, non-confirming uses after guidelines have been established. Moved by Reyes Uranga, seconded by O'Donnell. Councilmember DeLong spoke. Motion: Substitute motion to refer deliberation of medical marijuana licensing considerations cited in Councilmember Uranga’s main motion to the Housing and Neighborhood Committee, rather than the Economic Development and Finance Committee, and return to City Council within 90 days. Moved by DeLong, seconded by Garcia. Councilmember O'Donnell spoke. Vice Mayor Lerch spoke. Councilwoman Gabelich spoke and submitted written comments from Councilmembers Garcia, Lowenthal, Gabelich and Lerch. Councilmember Lowenthal spoke. Councilmember Reyes Uranga spoke. Councilman Andrews spoke. Councilwoman Schipske spoke. Robert Shannon, City Attorney, spoke. Suzanne Frick, Assistant City Manager, spoke. Councilwoman Schipske spoke. Robert Shannon, City Attorney, spoke. Councilmember Garcia spoke. Councilmember O'Donnell spoke. Councilwoman Gabelich spoke. Ben Rockwell spoke. Jim Wade spoke. Diana Lejins spoke. Ken Anderson spoke. Mark Adams spoke and submitted written comments. Sherif Issa spoke and submitted written comments. Kendall Rainwater spoke. Catherine Aldridge spoke. John Donahue spoke. William Britt spoke and submitted a booklet entitled "Cannabis Yields and Dosage." Gregory Moore spoke. Helen Bush spoke. Francis Emily Dawson Harris spoke. Councilwoman Gabelich spoke. Vice Mayor Lerch spoke.
Action: approve substitute motion
Action text: A second subtitute motion was made by Councilwoman Gabelich, seconded by Councilmember Lowenthal, to: A. Concurrently refer discussion of medical marijuana dispensaries licensing to the Economic Development and Finance Committee for receipt of additional public comment; and B. Request the City Attorney to report back to the City Council within 60 days on the feasibility, legality and enforcement of potential local ordinances the Council may enact regarding medical marijuana, pursuant to state law. The report would include the following considerations: [1] The means for legal medical marijuana collectives, as defined in state law and clarified in court cases such as People v. Mentsch, People v. Northcutt and People v. Urziceanu, to operate within the City; [2] Zoning criteria for the location of collectives within the City, including whether it is feasible to limit the location, size and number of members in a collective operating within a residential-zoned area; [3] The ability to prohibit any collective from being located within a 1,000-foot radius of schools, parks, licensed child care facilities, or other medical marijuana collectives; [4] The establishment of a system in which qualified collectives must register with the City to obtain a permit, and provide a list of the primary care givers and qualified patients that belong to the collective; [5] An appropriate fee payable to the City prior to being issued a permit; [6] The ability to regulate the sale or dispensing of any marijuana-related paraphernalia; [7] Require that all permitted collectives meet certain conditions, including, but not limited to: a) The location shall have a security plan approved by the Police Department, and the Police Department or other appropriate City department may inspect every medical marijuana collective location at a reasonable time to ensure compliance; b) No cultivated marijuana or dried marijuana product may be visible from the building exterior; c) No medical marijuana products may be consumed on-site, or in the parking areas of the site ; and d) Any food-related products offered by the collective shall comply with Health Department standards; [8] The applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act towards the operating of collectives in either residential or commercial corridors; and [9] The legality and feasibility of imposing a tax on gross receipts of medical marijuana, similar to the measure recently approved by the voters of the City of Oakland, CA. The foregoing motion also incorporated Councilmember Reyes Uranga’s request that the discussion on dispensary licensing include how the City would: [1] Provide a process for the collectives and cooperatives to apply for a business license, to set forth the specific standards and criteria under which such businesses shall be conducted and regulated within the City, and to set forth any regulatory fees pursuant to Title 5; [2] Declare a moratorium on medical marijuana facilities in order to develop a process for business licensing, adopt related zoning ordinances and to provide a time period for the registration of all existing facilities in order to determine the location and number of dispensaries within the City; [3] Develop and recommend the zoning requirements for placement of these facilities: i.e .not allowed near churches or schools, in neighborhoods, etc.; [4] Develop and recommend a standard on the number of dispensaries that would be allowed in the City; and [5] Determine how to amortize the closure of preexisting, non-confirming uses after guidelines have been established. The motion carried by the following vote:
* Votes (9)
Name Vote
Robert Garcia Yes
Suja Lowenthal Yes
Gary DeLong Yes
Patrick O'Donnell Yes
Gerrie Schipske Yes
Dee Andrews Yes
Tonia Reyes Uranga Yes
Rae Gabelich Yes
Val Lerch Yes
Complete City Council Agenda for September 21, 2009 in PDF format is available HERE
If you know of an event that you feel should be listed on our calendar, please send details to info@mjdispensaries.com ~Thank You
Posts
